4.7 Article

Is gravitational lensing by intercluster filaments always negligible?

Journal

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
Volume 682, Issue 2, Pages 711-720

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1086/589496

Keywords

cosmology : theory; dark matter; gravitation; gravitational lensing; large-scale structure of universe

Funding

  1. Science and Technology Facilities Council [PP/D000890/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  2. STFC [PP/D000890/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Intercluster filaments negligibly contribute to the weak lensing signal in general relativity (GR), gamma N similar to 10(-4)-10(-3). In the context of relativistic modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND) introduced by Bekenstein, however, a single filament inclined by approximate to 45 degrees from the line of sight can cause substantial distortion of background sources pointing toward the filament's axis [kappa = gamma = (1 - A(-1))/2 similar to 0.01]; this is rigorous for infinitely long uniform filaments, but also qualitatively true for short filaments (similar to 30 Mpc), and even in regions where the projected matter density of the filament is equal to zero. Since galaxies and galaxy clusters are generally embedded in filaments or are projected on such structures, this contribution complicates the interpretation of the weak lensing shear map in the context of MOND. While our analysis is of mainly theoretical interest providing order-of-magnitude estimates only, it seems safe to conclude that when modeling systems with anomalous weak lensing signals, e. g., the bullet cluster'' of Clowe et al., the cosmic train wreck'' of A520 from Mahdavi et al., and the dark clusters'' of Erben et al., filamentary structures might contribute in a significant and likely complex fashion. On the other hand, our predictions of a (conceptual) difference in the weak lensing signal could, in principle, be used to falsify MOND/TeVeS and its variations.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available